High Court sets aside lower court orders, allowing amendment in plaint despite delay, emphasizing pre-2002 CPC Amendment Act applicability.
In a notable judgment dated February 25, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, under the adjudication of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, ruled in favor of the petitioners, Dayanand and others, by permitting an amendment in a civil suit originally filed in 1997. This decision overturned previous orders by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which had rejected the amendment application citing delay.
The petitioners sought to amend their plaint to change the relief from a mandatory injunction to possession of the disputed property, alongside minor corrections. The trial court and subsequent revision court had earlier dismissed this amendment application, primarily on the grounds of its belated filing.
Justice Nigam's ruling underscored that the suit's filing predates the 2002 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), rendering the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 inapplicable. This proviso restricts amendments post-trial commencement unless due diligence is demonstrated. The High Court emphasized that delay alone should not be a reason to deny amendments, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council.
The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside the lower courts' orders without remitting the matter back for reconsideration. Instead, it directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, considering the case's long-standing nature. The trial court must resolve the case within six months, ensuring due process and opportunity for all parties to present their evidence.
This judgment highlights the judiciary's approach towards facilitating justice by allowing procedural flexibility, especially in pre-2002 cases, thus preventing undue prejudice to the parties involved.
Bottom Line:
Amendment in the plaint allowed despite delay as the suit was filed prior to the CPC Amendment Act, 2002, and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 does not apply. Delay in filing an amendment application cannot solely be a ground for rejection.
Statutory provision(s):
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227
Dayanand v. Mohan @ Ghure, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2858554
